Mine is a love-hate relationship with Geraldo Rivera. I find him comical and light-hearted most of the time. But then he goes off and says the stupidest things; so dumb in fact that it makes Juan Williams look professorial.

In particular, Geraldo Rivera tends to fall off the deep end when he speaks of immigration, and yesterday was no exception. In an article expressing his proposal at resolving the immigration crisis, Geraldo wrote, "In exchange for leniency and a path to citizenship for long-time undocumented residents already in this country--who were brought to the U.S. as children by their parents--pro-immigration advocates, like me, should announce our support for President Trump’s border wall. It will help restore order along the southern border, and mitigate the hysteria currently gripping the national immigration debate and tainting the mid-term elections."

Never mind that the position of immigration advocates regarding the President of the United States has no bearing on the state of affairs in Central America; the notion that continued opposition to President Trump's border wall will have any effect on his resolve to pursue it is also ill-contrived. Moreover, it is increasingly clear to most Americans that advocating for an open border is an absurd position that only serves to work against the interests of the United States and its citizens.

But included in Geraldo's article is a statement that crosses the border between political discourse and unsubstantiated and discriminatory speech. Specifically, Geraldo said, "It is, in my opinion, fear of our nation being over-run by poor, hungry, brown people in sufficient numbers to change our basic national character, which motivates most critics of this caravan and, more broadly, illegal immigration."

I can confidently speak not only for my position, but also for that of anyone I have spoken to regarding border protection, and I have been discussing this issue a heck of a lot, that in absolutely no case has anyone factored the color of one's skin or the nationality of those crossing illegally in the analysis of immigration. Quite the opposite; the only topics that keep coming up are our national sovereignty, our economy, and our national security. And for me, the most important of these is our national sovereignty.

So, in response, let me tell share with you my proposal on how to address this issue.

First, the necessity of building the wall, at this point, is a foregone conclusion. With the chaos we are witnessing to the south of us, there is no valid argument against it to be made. Build the wall, and build it now!

Second, the more immediate question is what to do about the thousands of individuals who are heading to our southern border at this moment. Here, I think the United States is making a big mistake in playing defense. Like the prevent defense in football, the United States is sitting at the end zone waiting for its opponent to arrive in the hope that once it gets there it will be able to stop it.

I say the United States needs to go on offense. The United States needs to coordinate an affirmative effort with Mexico to dissuade the "dissidents" from proceeding. The effort should begin with the airdropping of leaflets, in Spanish, letting the migrants know that they are continuing their journey at their own peril and that if they should choose to continue, they will be stopped, by force if necessary. Helicopters would deliver the same message using megaphones, urging them to turn back. Inherent in this message is the offer to have those wishing to turn back transported to their home country, free of charge.

Next, in a coordinated exercise with Mexico, the United States should begin crowd disbursement activities. This will help to further diminish the size of the crowd eventually confronting our officers at the border. Further, the topic of forcibly repatriating those who remain while still in Mexico should also be discussed with Mexican officials. If amenable, the United States should engage with Mexico in joint exercises accomplishing this end.

Those arriving at the border despite all these civil obstacles are more likely than not eager to engage in nefarious activities. These will be engaged, forcefully if necessary, at the border, and repelled.

Having regained control in the short run, and while building the wall, the United States would then have to evaluate the issues that are allowing for an appetite for emigration in the first place. We already know these include the many economic and governmental challenges plaguing Central American countries. The United States should immediately begin a mutually beneficial, long-term strategy aimed at reforming Central America with the goal of improving living conditions while benefiting the American economy and trade. Unquestionably, if these nations partner up, the results can be lucrative for each; and for their citizens.

As opposed to empty promises of support for the President, this plan will offer short-term control and long-term stability making it much more worthy of pursuit.

And that, Geraldo, is an actual proposal.

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.comto arrange a lecture or book signing.